Written by Panteia in Consortium with Fondazione Giacomo Brodolini and Metis GmbH October – 2016

Social Europe

ESF Ex-post Evaluation

Synthesis 2007-2013

EU synthesis report – final version

Contract VC/2015/0098

2

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion

Unit G4 —Evaluation and Impact Assessment

Contact: Unit G4

E-mail: Andris.Skrastins@ec.europa.eu

European Commission B-1049 Brussels

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Directorate-General for Employment Social Affairs and Inclusion

ESF Ex-post Evaluation

Synthesis 2007-2013

EU synthesis report – final version

4

LEGAL NOTICE

This document has been prepared for the European Commission; however, it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2016

Catalogue number: KE-04-16-747-EN-N ISBN: 978-92-79-61685-3 doi:10.2767/1734

© European Union, 2016 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. For any use of photo which are not under the European Union copyright, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holder(s) indicated.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union.

Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

http://europa.eu.int/citizensrights/signpost/about/index_en.htm#note1#note1

5

Glossary of key concepts

Access to Employment

(A2E)

Important policy area focused on enhancing Access to

Employment and the sustainable inclusion in the labour

market of job seekers and inactive people, preventing

unemployment, in particular long-term and youth

unemployment, encouraging active ageing and longer

working lives, and increasing participation in the labour

market. A2E is one of the Priorities of Article 3 “Scope of

assistance” of the ESF Regulation No 1081/2006.

Action The second level in the OP architecture; usually the

Priority Axis (see below) consists of several actions.

Adaptability

A key policy area in the ESF, consisting of activities to

increase the adaptation of workers and enterprises to

the changing economic circumstances and labour market

demands - one of the Priorities of Article 3 “Scope of

assistance“ of the ESF Regulation No 1081/2006.

Allocated expenditure Expenditure allocated to the ESF activities during the

programming stage of the Operational Programmes.

Annex XXIII categories The socio-economic characteristics of ESF participants

reported in the ESF monitoring systems, relating to the

participants’ gender, labour market status (employed (of

which self-employed), unemployed (of which long-term

unemployed), inactive of which in education and

training), age (young people aged 15-24 and older

people aged 55-64), disadvantaged status (migrants,

minorities, disabled, other disadvantaged) and

educational attainment status (by ISCED levels).

Category of expenditure

(CoE)

Categorisation of the Structural Fund expenditure; cf

ANNEX IV of COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1083/2006

of 11 July 2006. ESF expenditure relates to Categories

62 to 74.

Certified expenditure Expenditure incurred in the implementation of the ESF

activities, which has been approved by the Managing

Authority of the Operational Programme and the

European Commission.

Cluster A group of actions or interventions with common

objectives and activities (the evaluation identified 9

clusters of ESF A2E activities).

Convergence objective Speeding up the convergence of the least-developed

Member States and regions: NUTS level 2 regions in the

MS whose gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was

less than 75 % of the average GDP of the EU-25 for the

same reference period.

Effectiveness The extent to which the set aims and objectives have

been reached.

EU Added Value (EUAV) Also known as Community added value (CAV): Value

resulting from EU intervention that is additional to the

value that would have resulted from intervention

initiated at regional or national levels. Four types of

EUAV are defined by the Commission:

Volume: ESF funding adds to existing actions, either by

supporting national action in general or specific areas of

national policy.

Scope: ESF action broadens existing action by

6

supporting groups or policy areas that would not

otherwise receive support.

Role: ESF action supports local/regional innovations that

are taken up at national level or national innovative

actions that are then ‘mainstreamed’.

Process: ESF action influences Member State

administrations and organisations involved in the

programmes.

Gender sensitivity The extent to which the planning, design,

implementation and monitoring reflects gender issues.

Human Capital A key policy area in the ESF, consisting of activities to

develop the skills and knowledge of human resources

across the different stages of the education and training

system cycle (relating to the priorities of enhancing

Human Capital and expanding and improving investment

in Human Capital of the ESF Regulation). HC is one of

the Priorities of Article 3 “Scope of assistance” of the

ESF Regulation No 1081/2006.

ISCED International Standard Classification of Education, an

international standard classification used to classify the

education levels:

1 Primary education

2 Lower secondary education

3 Upper secondary education

4 Post-secondary non-tertiary education

5 Short-cycle tertiary education

6 Bachelor or equivalent

Intermediary Body (IB) Any public or private body or service which acts under

the responsibility of a managing or which carries out

duties on behalf of such an authority vis-à-vis

beneficiaries implementing operations.

Intervention The third level in the OP architecture, usually the Actions

in the OP consist of several interventions.

Managing Authority

(MA)

A national, regional or local public authority or a public

or private body designated by the MS to manage the

operational programme.

Multi-Objective OP An OP in which both RCE and Convergence regions

participate

Operational Programme

(OP)

The means through which the ESF support was

implemented in the MS, as agreed between the

European Commission and the MS. Each OP consists of

several Priority Axes, which in turn consist of several

actions, which in turn consist of several interventions.

Output The immediate reach of the ESF activity (e.g. number of

participants reached, number of schools or enterprises

supported).

Participant The person who participated in the ESF funded activity.

Priority Axis (PA) The first level in the OP architecture, usually the OP

consists of several Priority Axes (concepts of priorities,

areas and others are also used in the OPs), which in turn

consist of several actions and each action of several

7

interventions.

Promoting Partnerships

(PP)

Policy priority focused on partnerships, pacts and

initiatives through networking of relevant stakeholders,

such as the social partners and non-governmental

organisations, at the transnational, national, regional

and local levels in order to mobilise for reforms in the

field of employment and labour market inclusiveness. PP

is one of the Priorities of Article 3 “Scope of assistance”

of the ESF Regulation No 1081/2006.

Project promoter The organisation in charge of implementing specific ESF

funded projects.

Regional

competitiveness and

employment objective

(RCE)

Aimed at strengthening regions' competitiveness and

attractiveness as well as employment by anticipating

economic and social changes outside the least-

developed regions: NUTS level 2 regions in the EU MS

whose gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was

above 90 % of the average GDP of the EU-25 for the

same reference period.

Result The change achieved through the activity upon leaving

to long term achievements of ESF activities (e.g. number

of qualifications acquired by participants, number of

enterprises providing training).

Social Inclusion Refers to a wide range of issues and activities, covering

aspects such as fundamental rights, access to adequate

income support and quality services. From the

perspective of ESF SI interventions, the most common

strand of activity in the Recommendation is that relating

to inclusive labour markets. This focus is also echoed in

the ESF Regulation, where the SI priority focuses on

inclusion into the labour market as the best means of

integrating individuals into society and of combatting

social exclusion. SI is one of the Priorities of Article 3

“Scope of assistance” of the ESF Regulation No

1081/2006.

Strengthening

Institutional Capacity

A key priority focussing on the efficiency of public

administrations and public services at national, regional

and local level by promoting mechanisms to improve

good policy and programme design, monitoring and

evaluation, and capacity building in the delivery of

policies and programmes in the relevant fields. SIC is

one of the Priorities of Article 3 “Scope of assistance” of

the ESF Regulation No 1081/2006.

Sustainability The extent to which the achieved results last.

8

List of acronyms

AIR Annual Implementation Report

A2E Access and sustainable inclusion into employment

ALMP Active Labour Market Policy

CIE Counterfactual impact evaluation

CON Convergence regions

CSR Country Specific Recommendations

EEN Expert Evaluation Network

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ESF European Social Fund

IB Intermediary body

IVET Initial vocational education and training

HC Human capital

MA Managing Authority

MS Member State

NRP National Reform Programme

OP Operational Programme

PA Priority Axis

PES Public Employment Service

PP Promoting Partnerships

RCE Regional Competitiveness and Employment region

SCO Simplified costs option

SI Social Inclusion

SIC Strengthening Institutional Capacity

SFC System for Fund Management

9

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 13

KEY FINDINGS ............................................................................................... 14

KEY LESSONS LEARNED .................................................................................. 18

1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 19

1.1 Objectives of the European Social Fund .............................................. 19

1.2 The purpose of the synthesis of ex post evaluation ESF 2007-2013 ........ 20

1.3 The scope of the ex post evaluation ................................................... 20

1.4 Evaluation criteria ............................................................................ 21

2 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT .................................................................... 22

2.1 EU priorities in employment and social policy ...................................... 22

2.2 Linking ESF to EU strategic objectives ................................................ 23

2.3 Developing challenges across 2007-2013 ........................................... 27

2.4 Response of ESF 2007-2013 to the crisis ............................................ 30

3 SCALE OF ESF INVESTMENTS .................................................................... 35

3.1 ESF allocation 2007-2013 ................................................................. 35

3.2 Significance of ESF investments at MS level ........................................ 38

4 EFFECTIVENESS ...................................................................................... 40

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 40

4.2 Progress in the financial implementation of programmes ...................... 41

4.3 Output and results of ESF ................................................................. 44

4.4 Findings on effectiveness from selected interventions studied in-depth ... 55

5 EFFICIENCY ............................................................................................ 65

5.1 Costs per participation ..................................................................... 65

5.2 Costs of different types of interventions ............................................. 67

5.3 Reducing administrative burden ........................................................ 69

6 SUSTAINABILITY ..................................................................................... 71

6.1 Sustainability of individual results ...................................................... 71

6.2 Sustainability of system results ......................................................... 72

6.3 Sustainability of interventions ........................................................... 73

7 GENDER SENSITIVITY .............................................................................. 75

7.1 Context .......................................................................................... 75

7.2 Attention to gender sensitivity in ESF programming ............................. 76

7.3 Participations .................................................................................. 76

7.4 Effectiveness by gender.................................................................... 78

8 INVESTMENTS IN YOUNG PEOPLE .............................................................. 79

8.1 Background and context of investments in young people ...................... 79

8.2 Role of the ESF in supporting youth employment ................................. 80

8.3 Involvement of young people in ESF programmes ................................ 81

8.4 Results of investments in young people .............................................. 83

9 ADDED VALUE AT EU LEVEL ...................................................................... 86

9.1 Volume effects ................................................................................ 86

9.2 Scope effects .................................................................................. 87

9.3 Role effects ..................................................................................... 87

10

9.4 Process effects ................................................................................ 88

10 SOCIO-ECONOMIC IMPACT ....................................................................... 89

10.1 Macro-level ..................................................................................... 89

10.2 Meso-level ...................................................................................... 90

10.3 Micro-level ...................................................................................... 92

11 KEY LESSONS LEARNED ........................................................................... 95

11.1 Key lessons in terms of policy choices ................................................ 95

11.2 Key lessons in terms of target groups ................................................ 98

11.3 Key lessons in terms of the appropriate programming ........................ 100

11.4 Key lessons in terms of the effective implementation ......................... 102

11.5 Key lessons drawn in terms of the robustness of the monitoring .......... 103

11.6 Key lessons drawn in terms of the robustness of the evaluation systems105

ANNEX I PARTICIPATION DATA (ANNEX XXIII) ................................................. 108

ANNEX II RESULT INDICATORS ...................................................................... 111

ANNEX III DATA AND EVALUATIONS LIMITATIONS FOR ESF EX-POST

EVALUATION ......................................................................................... 112

ANNEX IV BENCHMARKS FOR SIGNIFICANCE OF ESF INVESTMENTS ................... 117

11

List of tables and figures

Table 1. Clusters of interventions, linked to key CSR challenges ..............................23

Table 2. Linking priorities in CSR to ESF programming (over the period 2004-2013) ..26

Table 3. Changes in employment rate (people aged 20-64 years) 2006-2014 ............28

Table 4. ESF 2007-2013 budget Community / National (public + private) (in million €) ..........................................................................................................36

Table 5. Relative budget allocated to ESF priorities (based on total allocated budget, which includes EU + national budget) ......................................................37

Table 6. Significance of ESF investments in MS across ESF priorities ........................38

Table 7. Progress of Implementation ESF2007-2013 in absolute values (in Million €) (based on total budget Community + National amounts) ...........................41

Table 8. Implementation rates for ESF2007-2013 priorities (in %)(based on total budget Community + National amounts) .................................................42

Table 9. Total number participations in ESF 2007-2013 by ESF priority (until end 2014) ..........................................................................................................47

Table 10. Total aggregated achieved values of PP and SIC indicators.........................49

Table 11. Total aggregated achievements of results indicators per MS .......................50

Table 12. Total aggregated achieved values of results indicators by ESF Priority .........51

Table 13. Total aggregated achieved values of results indicators and success rates by ESF priority / region ..............................................................................52

Table 14. Overview of the clusters of ESF Human Capital investments .......................56

Table 15. Overview of the cluster of ESF A2E investment .........................................58

Table 16. Overview of the cluster of ESF Social Inclusion investment ........................60

Table 17. Cost per participation across ESF priorities (in €) – EU 28 ..........................66

Table 18. Efficiency data by clusters – Human Capital .............................................67

Table 19. Efficiency data by interventions – Access to Employment & Social Inclusion .68

Table 20. Number and share of female participations ..............................................76

Table 21. Absolute number and share of young people (15-24) among total participations ..........................................................................................

81

Table 22. Share of young people (15-24 years old) among total participations in ESF ..83

Table 23. Additional volume to national resources ...................................................87

Table 24. Additional target groups reached through ESF ..........................................87

Table 25. ESF used to test new and innovative activities ..........................................88

Table 26. ESF used to improve the delivery systems and methods ............................88

Table 27. Share of participations in comparison to total target populations ................92

Table 28. Participation data (Annex XXIII) ........................................................... 108

Table 29. Total number participations in ESF 2007-2013 per ESF priority in CON regions (until 31-12-2014) .............................................................................. 109

Table 30. Total number participations in ESF 2007-2013 per ESF priority in RCE regions (until 31-12-2014) .............................................................................. 110

Table 31. Result indicators ................................................................................. 111

Table 32. Data and evaluations limitations for ESF ex-post evaluation ..................... 112

12

Table 33. Total allocated ESF funding (Union and national) on A2E Priority Axes compared to expenditure on ALMP 2007-2013 in 28 MS .......................... 117

Figure 1 Share of population (aged 18 and above) at risk of poverty or social exclusion by gender, period change between 2005 and 2014 (%) .............................29

Figure 2. Higher education attainment (30-34 year olds) (%) 2007-2014, by MS .......30

Figure 3. Early School Leaving period change 2007-2014, by MS .............................30

Figure 4. Comparison of budget allocations of OP approved at 31-12-2014 against first version OP (Community amount) ............................................................31

Figure 5. Comparison of budget allocations of OP approved at 31-12-2014 against first version OP, by type of region (EU amount and national amount separately) .32

Figure 6. Relative budget allocated to ESF2007-2013 priorities ................................38

Figure 7. Implementation rates over time, ESF 2007-2013 – outliers ........................43

Figure 8. Participations compared against total budget spent in ESF 2007-2013 – by MS ...............................................................................................44

Figure 9. Relative share of total participations in ESF 2007-2013 over the years (cumulative values) ..............................................................................46

Figure 10. Relative share of total number participations in ESF 2007-2013 per ESF Priority and MS (by December 2014) .......................................................48

Figure 11. Share of total participations by Priority and type of region .........................49

Figure 12. Achievement rates of output indicators by ESF Priority ..............................53

Figure 13. Achievement rates of result indicators by type of region ............................54

Figure 14. Achievement rates of result indicators by type of indicator .........................54

13

Executive Summary

Headline findings

A total of €115.6 billion was allocated to ESF 2007-2013, of which €76.7 billion is

contributed by the EU budget (66.3%). National contributions amount to €35.1

billion, complemented by an additional €3.7 billion contributed by private funds,

mobilised at the national level.

More than 90% of the ESF 2007-2013 budget was allocated to the three main ESF

priorities: Human Capital & Adaptability (46%), Access to Employment (34%), and

Social Inclusion (14%).

By the end of 2014, 79% of all allocated budgets had been spent across the

various policy priorities, ranging from 42% in Croatia to 97% in Latvia. This will

still increase substantially in the last year of implementation.

ESF 2007-2013 registered a total of 98.7 million participations. Among these, a

total of 51.3 million female participations were recorded, i.e. 51.4% of all

participations throughout the programme period. A total of 30 million

participations of unemployed were registered (30.4% of total participations).

Young people were among the most important target groups across all ESF

priorities, with a total of 30.1 million participations of young people registered in

ESF 2007-2013, equalling 30.5% of all participations.

At least 31.8 million positive results have been achieved by individuals (8.7 million

obtained qualifications, 9.4 million secured employment while 13.7 million

obtained other positive result).

Relating results to participations, 44% of all participations can be linked to a

positive individual result. These figures are expected to rise further towards the

end of 2015.

Aim and scope of the ex-post evaluation

This report concerns the ex post evaluation of the European Social Fund (ESF) in the

2007-2013 programming period. The scope of the assistance from the ESF is set out in

Art. 3 of the ESF Regulation 1081/2006 and covers:

Increasing the Adaptability of workers, enterprises, and entrepreneurs;

Enhancing Access to Employment;

Reinforcing the social inclusion of disadvantaged groups;

Enhancing Human Capital;

Promoting Partnerships;

Strengthening Institutional Capacity.

This synthesis report covers, as required by Article 49(3) of the above mentioned

Regulation, all Operational Programmes under each Objective and examines the extent to

which resources were used, the effectiveness and efficiency of Fund programming and its

socio-economic impact. It aims to draw conclusions for the policy on economic and social

cohesion. It also identifies the factors contributing to the success or failure of the

implementation of operational programmes, and describes good practices.

Methodology

Given the complex nature and the magnitude of the ex-post evaluation, DG EMPL

commissioned a preparatory study to support the Commission in designing the ex-post

evaluation. This preparatory study assessed the availability of data and suggested how

this could be best used for the ex-post evaluation. Based on the outcomes of this study,

three thematic ex-post evaluations of ESF 2007-2013 were launched by the European

Commission, DG EMPL. These covered the ESF Priorities (1) Adaptability and Human

Capital (grouped together under the priority Human Capital, also by this synthesis

evaluation); (2) the Integration of Disadvantaged Groups (Social Inclusion); and (3)

Access and Sustainable Integration into Employment (Access to Employment). It is noted

that the evaluation started before the Commission Evaluation Guidelines came into force.

For the ESF Ex-post Evaluation Synthesis 2007-2013, supplementary information was

gathered in 2015 on the ESF Priorities Promoting Partnership and Strengthening

14

Institutional Capacity, which were not covered by the previous separate contracts. The

ex-post evaluation synthesis also includes 28 country reports. The ex-post evaluation is

based on an analysis of existing information available from the programme monitoring

systems, programme evaluations from the EC and Member States, and additional

fieldwork carried out in each of the thematic evaluations. Moreover, the synthesis study

updated the monitoring data to include data up to 31 December 2014, for research,

timing and practical reasons. This also allowed the inclusion of Croatia in the evaluation.

It is to be noted, however, that expenditure of the 2007-2013 programming period was

eligible until 31 December 2015 and hence programme implementation continued after

the cut-off date. Implementation data (expenditure, participations and indicators) will

consequently be higher, in some cases significantly, at the end of the programming

period than the figures presented in this evaluation.

Key Findings

ESF programming in a changing socio economic and policy context

The evidence collected on the implementation of ESF 2007-2013 underlines the

importance of ESF as a relevant instrument to support national and EU economic and

social policy priorities. In line with Regulation (EC) No 1081/2006 on the European Social

Fund, ESF priorities and programming are aligned with the European Employment

Guidelines and contribute towards achieving the EU headline targets. The specific

challenges identified for individual MS by the Country Specific Recommendations (CSR)

towards achieving the EU headline targets are well reflected in the programming of ESF

2007-2013; all clusters of interventions identified by the various thematic ex-post

evaluations can be linked to at least one of the CSR key challenges.

The flexibility in programming further facilitated by the European Economic Recovery

Plan in 2008, enabled a swift response of ESF to the immediate challenges created by the

crisis. In its response, ESF 2007-2013 increased its focus on fighting unemployment,

while ensuring the continued relevance of ESF to deliver the EU2020 objectives of smart,

sustainable and inclusive growth. Due to widespread austerity measures after the

economic and financial crisis, the cuts in national contributions to ESF investments

reduced the overall available investments for ESF from €118 billion to €115.6 billion. To

limit the negative effects for MS with financial difficulties specifically, the Community’s

financial contribution was raised by €641.5 million, in comparison to the first version of

ESF 2007-2013.

Scale of ESF investments

A total of €115.60 billion was allocated to ESF 2007-2013 by the EU and MS, of which

€76.75 billion refers to the EU contribution, which corresponds to roughly 7.9% of the

total Multi-annual Financial Framework.1 This is comparable to the share in the previous

programming period 2000-2006. National contributions amounted to €35.12 billion,

complemented by an additional €3.73 billion contributed by private funds, mobilised at

the national level. The investments in Human Capital and Adaptability are the largest

(46% of the budget), followed by investments in Access to Employment (34%). Social

Inclusion interventions have been allocated 14% of the budget, leaving 2% for

Strengthening Institutional Capacity, 1% for Promoting Partnerships, and 3% for

Technical Assistance. There are considerable differences in priorities between MS; some

chose to invest relatively little in Access to Employment interventions, while others

invested less in Human Capital. Regional Competitiveness and Employment (RCE) regions

invested overall more in employment related interventions, while Convergence (CON)

regions concentrated more on investment in human capital.

The significance of ESF investments in relation to national funding varies substantially

between MS, most particularly between older and newer MS. In AT, DK, FI, IE, LU, NL,

SE, the contribution of ESF is relatively insignificant when compared to national

investments in similar policy areas. However, ESF investments in BG, CZ, EE, EL, HR, LV,

1 http://ec.europa.eu/budget/financialreport/2013/annex/1/index_en.html

15

LT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, and SK are very significant in their national contexts. In other MS

(BE, CY, DE, ES, FR, HU, IT, UK) ESF investment has a substantial significance.

Effectiveness

By December 2014, a total of €91.65 billion had been spent, which corresponds to 79.3%

of the total allocated budget. The implementation of ESF 2007-2013 generally took off in

2009 and we can observe that MS have different spending patterns over the

programming period. While some MS have achieved implementation rates of over 90%

(AT, LV, PT), in others they remained low (particularly RO, HR, and SK), there are no

substantial differences between the implementation rates of CON and RCE regions

overall. As projects can still be completed and declared until the end of 2015, a

significant rise in the implementation rate is expected.

ESF supported large numbers of participants and entities to address a number of

strategic development challenges across MS. In total, 98.66 million participations were

recorded in the interventions funded by the ESF between 2007 and 2013 (61.77 million

in CON regions and 36.89 million in RCE regions). Throughout the programming period,

ESF has a balanced focus between inactive (36% of participations), employed (33%) and

unemployed (30%) persons. While ESF 2007-2013 has reached a considerable number of

young people (30.5%), the share of older people (55-64 years old) in ESF participations

has been relatively low (6%).

In priorities Human Capital, Access to Employment and Social Inclusion ESF 2007-2013

contributed to a total of 30.24 million individual positive results (obtained qualifications,

secured employment, etc.) that could be linked to approximately 68.97 million

participations across the ESF priorities. As such, 44% of all participations in these

priorities can be linked to a positive individual result. These figures are expected to rise

further towards the end of 2015.

The thematic evaluations complement these figures with additional evidence and

generally confirm the positive results across the ESF priorities. While the crisis proved

challenging, particularly for reaching the targets set under Access to Employment and

Social inclusion, the triangulation of various data sources shows that interventions under

ESF 2007-2013 have generally been effective.

Altogether, the ESF made significant investments in employment, human capital, social

policies and strengthening the institutional capacities of public administrations, leading to

a significant volume of outputs and results.

Efficiency

Efficiency of ESF can be mainly assessed by comparing the average cost per

participation. The average cost per participation for all interventions across the EU28 is

€897. The interventions in the field of Human Capital cost less (€681 per participation

respectively), while interventions targeting more vulnerable groups tend to be more

expensive. Access to Employment interventions cost on average €1,113 per participation

and Social Inclusion actions €1,763 per participation. No cost per participation was

calculated for interventions in the field of Promoting Partnership and Strengthening

Institutional Capacity, as these interventions are generally targeted at institutions rather

than individuals.

The available monitoring information does not allow systematic aggregation of results at

the EU level. Therefore, an analysis of efficiency of ESF intervention is limited to

comparing the cost per participation in different types of interventions across different

MS. For a number of individual Priority Axes, costs per result could be calculated; these

range between €401 and €8,340 and are in line with findings of in-depth interventions.

Despite the large variation, these largely conform to the findings on the costs per

participation.

Despite the considerable differences between cost per participation (or result where

available) across MS, these are mainly attributed to broader macro-level conditions in

MS, rather than (in)efficiencies in the implementation of interventions. Another important

reason for substantial variations is the different ways in which ESF investments are used

by MS. Some MS use ESF to complement national policies and, as a result, the cost per

participation appears to be considerably lower. In other MS, ESF is used almost

16

exclusively to develop innovative approaches, which tends to be more expensive per

participation. These differences do not necessarily indicate differences in efficiency, but in

uses and reflect the large variety of approaches across the EU.

Sustainability

Sustainability is understood as the extent to which specific positive effects can still be

observed after some time has passed, measured at the individual or system level. Across

the different programmes, there is no common approach to assessing the sustainability

of ESF interventions for individuals. The data that is available, however, mainly for

interventions in Access to Employment, show how ESF contributed to sustainable results

for individuals. However, a systematic follow-up of individual results in other ESF

priorities is rare and does not provide sufficient systematic evidence to draw robust

conclusions.

Mixed results were found for the sustainability of results at the system level. One-off

efforts to increase the quality of education are often limited in terms of sustainability as

their success is highly dependent on concrete follow-up. However, interventions focusing

on lifelong learning systems, or training of staff, achieved more sustainable results.

Most ESF interventions aim for sustainability through securing continued support from

ESF in the new programming period. Several years after the financial crisis, there are

continued restrictions on national budgets, which limit the potential to sustain ongoing

projects without EU funding. Elements that are found to contribute to sustainability of

interventions across the MS are (i) the conversion of new working relations into lasting

networks, (ii) sharing of lessons learned, (iii) adoption of common approaches, (iv)

mainstreaming of approaches.

Gender sensitivity

A total of 51.3 million of female participations were registered in ESF 2007-2013, which

corresponds to 51.4% of all participations throughout the programming period.

Most MS applied the principles of gender equality as a general horizontal principle in their

ESF programming. However, this is not always positive, because such a horizontal

approach sometimes displaces specific gender sensitivity actions. Most interventions

across various priorities did not include specific actions directly addressing gender

sensitivity.

A detailed analysis of the main ESF priorities shows that while most types of intervention

have a relatively equal distribution of gender among participants (between 45%-55%),

there are a number of MS and ESF priorities that show considerable differences. These

differences are generally the result of a specific focus of underlying interventions and not

necessarily of a lack of gender sensitivity. Most illustrative are male-dominated HC

interventions targeting employees (due to higher employment rate of men in traditional

industries), or female dominated interventions that target education or social services in

Human Capital or Strengthening Institutional Capacity.

Despite the increased emphasis on gender mainstreaming in this programming period,

evidence is lacking to allow an assessment of the articulation of gender equality in

intervention design, objectives and target groups. Few interventions provide gender

breakdowns for programme specific participation and result indicators (other than those

requested by Annex XXIII), which prevents the assessment of gender specific results.

Young people

Although there are few references to ‘young people’ in the Regulations governing ESF

2007-2013, the ESF has an important role in the implementation of policy initiatives in

the area of youth. Young people are among the most important target groups across all

ESF priorities, with a total of 30.1 million participations of young people registered

in ESF 2007-2013, 30.5% of all participations.

Within ESF programming, a great diversity of approaches under the various ESF priorities

target young people. While most measures relate to Access to Employment directly,

other types of measures for young people are often linked to education and training

measures (Human Capital) to improve young people’s position in the labour market in

17

the longer term. While these interventions do not always exclusively target young

people, broader interventions can cater to young people’s needs as well.

Despite the emphasis on young people in many OPs, relatively few MS defined OP-

specific indicators focusing on outputs and results for young people supported via ESF

investment, which prevents the assessment of the actual results of such interventions for

young people specifically.

The increased policy attention at EU level to youth unemployment and the introduction of

various specific youth employment policies between 2010-2013 has not directly

translated into an increase of participation in the second half of the ESF programming

period. In fact, despite some exceptions, various MS reduced the share of participations

after the start of the crisis, giving more space for ESF participation of individuals between

25-54 years old.

EU Added Value

Considerable added value was generated by ESF 2007-2013 in terms of the volume of

investments provided. ESF 2007-2013 provided a significant contribution to national

employment and social policies in a majority of MS, particularly in newer MS.

ESF 2007-2013 also provided added value by broadening the scope of existing national

interventions. By making use of ESF interventions, MS were able to offer more tailored

and intensive services to specific target groups such as people with disabilities, young

people at risk of early school leaving, or persons with low qualifications.

ESF 2007-2013 contributed to changing the role of public services, particularly in the

fields of Human Capital and Promoting Partnerships. In these fields, ESF has been used

to test and implement new and innovative activities, and provides EU Added Value

(EUAV) through the introduction of new ways of cooperation between various

stakeholders.

The evaluations show that ESF interventions had added value in terms of process effects,

mainly in the field of Promoting Partnerships and Strengthening Institutional Capacity.

Interventions in these fields contributed to the adoption of systemic reforms and

administrative capacity building in public services, such as PES or educational

institutions, mainly in CON regions.

Socio-economic impacts

The various evaluations conducted at MS and European level confirm the important role

of ESF 2007-2013 in achieving the EU2020 objectives for smart and sustainable growth

and social and economic cohesion within and between MS. While the current evidence

base does not allow the establishment of a direct link to broader macro-level impacts of

ESF specifically, the generally positive results of ESF indicate the relevance of ESF 2007-

2013 in limiting the negative effects of the crisis at the macro and micro level in most

MS. Moreover, a broader ex-post synthesis evaluation of Cohesion Policy found a

contribution to economic development and growth.2

The ESF 2007-2013 contributed to meso-level impacts through its focus on capacity

building, systems development and partnership promotion, which are particularly

relevant in CON regions. The ESF created valuable impacts at the meso-level, for

instance by increasing the scope of mainstream social services in various MS.

Given the ESF’s primary focus on interventions for individuals, micro-level impacts

created by the ESF 2007 have been central throughout this evaluation. First of all, a

substantial share of the targeted populations have been reached with ESF 2007-2013.

Among those that have been reached, by the end of 2014, 30.24 million individual

positive results (such as: qualifications obtained, secured employment, other results)

have been achieved that can be linked back to 68.97 million participations. These

numbers are likely to increase in the final year of implementation, and show the

2 Ex post evaluation of Cohesion policy programmes 2007-2013 financed by the ERDF and the Cohesion Fund: WP1 synthesis report

18

contribution and relevance of ESF towards improving social and economic cohesion in the

EU, both between and within MS.

Key lessons learned

The evaluation shows a wide variety of lessons learned in terms of:

Policy choices: It is recommended to continue aligning ESF with EU and national

policies, and concentrating budgets on areas where the largest community added

value can be obtained. The appropriate balance should be sought between new and

existing activities while ensuring sufficient flexibility in programming to respond to

external shocks and the implementation challenges.

Target groups: The results of the evaluation point to the need to increase support

for disadvantaged groups, and target ESF interventions on specific target groups.

This requires an improved understanding of the needs of specific target groups

while planning interventions, and requires the promotion of customisation of

interventions to meet the needs of specific target groups (targeted intervention

proved to be most effective). There is a continuing need to focus on young and

older people, and to ensure a balance between men and women.

Appropriate programming: The objectives for the different policy priorities

should be defined in a more robust and clearly demarcated way, sufficiently

supported by clear and measurable targets. This would be helped by a common

target setting methodology between MS, applying evidence-based programming,

which engages stakeholders / partners in programme planning. In addition, more

attention is required for the sustainability of programming, gender sensitivity, and

inter-programme coordination.

Programme implementation: It is recommended that monitoring tools for

measuring programme performance are improved to reduce delays in

implementation, and additional use is made of technologies and e-learning in ESF

delivery. Social partners should be more involved in the design and implementation

of the programme in order to improve programme implementation. Programmes

should detect good practices in successful programme and project implementation

and share these with a wider audience.

Robustness of monitoring systems: To improve the robustness of the overall

programme, the Commission should aim for a higher standardisation of programme

indicators across OPs and MS, and require consistent and reliable data reporting in

SFC. The availability of longitudinal data on participations should also be improved

to measure effects over time. Data and target setting should be set at individual

intervention level. Result indicators could be improved in order to better reflect the

expected change to be made by a specific intervention.

Robustness of evaluation systems: It is recommended to reintroduce the

concept of “final evaluation” at OP level, providing timely inputs to the ex post

evaluation. Evaluations would further benefit by linking of the data on ESF

participations with administrative data, and including the qualitative aspects of

efficiency, in order to draw lessons for improving the efficiency of the programme in

future. Evaluations could also broaden their scope beyond employment and

education by focusing on improved measurement and capturing soft results from

ESF interventions such as skills developed and empowerment (which play a role in

the pathway to employment / education / social inclusion). There is a need to

improve the robustness of the evaluations undertaken, and to further promote the

use of counterfactual approaches in future programming periods. To allow cross-

country and thematic analysis, evaluations could be further harmonised across OPs

and MS. Finally, it is recommended to start exploring data and evaluation needs for

the 2014-2020 ex post evaluation as early as possible. The Commission should

continue working on the improvement of evaluation practice in the ESF in a

dialogue with MS and the community of evaluation experts, facilitating peer

learning and research.

Many of the recommendations are already addressed in the new programming period,

such as improving the alignment between ESF and EU and national policy targets,

intervention logics, the performance orientation of the programme, programme indicators

and evaluation planning.

19

1 Introduction

1.1 Objectives of the European Social Fund

This report presents the results of the ex post evaluation of the European Social Fund

(ESF) in the 2007-2013 programming period. The aim of the ESF in 2007-2013 is to

support the MS in measures related to growth and employment based on the Broad

Economic Policy Guidelines, the European Employment Strategy, and the

Employment Policy Guidelines. As set out in Article 2(2) of the ESF Regulation

1081/2006 among the most prominent tasks of ESF is to take into account “… the

relevant priorities and objectives of the Community in the fields of education and

training, increasing the participation of economically inactive people in the labour market,

combating social exclusion – especially that of disadvantaged groups such as people with

disabilities – and promoting equality between women and men and non-discrimination.”

The scope of the assistance from the ESF is set out in Art. 3 of the ESF Regulation

1081/2006 and aims at:

Increasing the Adaptability of workers, enterprises, and entrepreneurs with

a view to improving the anticipation and positive management of economic change

(corresponding to the priorities of: (1) lifelong learning and increased investment in

human resources (2) design and dissemination of innovative and more productive

forms of work organisation);

Enhancing Access to Employment and the sustainable inclusion in the labour

market of job seekers and inactive people, preventing unemployment, in particular

long-term and youth unemployment, encouraging active ageing and longer working

lives, and increasing participation in the labour market (corresponding to the

priorities of: (3) the modernisation and strengthening of labour market institutions,

(4) the implementation of active and preventive measures ensuring the early

identification of needs with individual actions plans and personalised support (5)

mainstreaming and specific actions to improve access to employment (6) increasing

the participations of migrants in employment);

Reinforcing the Social Inclusion of disadvantaged people with a view to their

sustainable integration in employment and combating all forms of discrimination in

the labour market (corresponding to the priorities of: (7) pathways to integration

and re-entry into employment for disadvantaged people (8) acceptance of diversity

and combating of discrimination);

Enhancing Human Capital, corresponding to the priorities of: (9) the introduction

and design of reforms in education and training systems and (10) networking

activities between higher education institutes, research and technological centres

and enterprises;

Promoting Partnerships, pacts and initiatives through (11) networking of

relevant stakeholders, such as the social partners and non-governmental

organisations, at the transnational, national, regional and local levels in order to

mobilise for reforms in the field of employment and labour market inclusiveness;

The ESF sets additional objectives for so-called Convergence (CON) regions. CON regions

are defined as those regions having a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of less

than 75% of the average GDP of the EU-25.3 In these regions, ESF also supports:

Expanding and improving investment in Human Capital by promoting: (12)

the implementation of reforms in education and training, (13) increased

participation in education and training throughout the life-cycle, and (14)

development of human potential in research and innovation;

Strengthening Institutional Capacity and the efficiency of public administrations

and public services at national, regional and local level by promoting (15)

mechanisms to improve good policy and programme design, monitoring and

3 Commission Decision C(2006)3475 of 4th August 2006 and Commission Decision C(2007) 1283 of 26 March

2007 amending Decision 2006/595/EC as concerns Bulgaria and Romania)

20

evaluation, and (16) capacity building in the delivery of policies and programmes in

the relevant fields.

1.2 The purpose of the synthesis of ex post evaluation ESF 2007-2013

Under the 2007-2013 Regulations4, MS are responsible for the ex-ante and on-going

evaluations of their Operational Programmes (OPs), while the Commission is responsible

for the ex post evaluation. Regulation Article 49(3) states that:

“The Commission shall carry out an ex post evaluation for each objective in close

cooperation with the MS and managing authorities. The ex post evaluation shall

cover all the operational programmes under each objective and examine the extent

to which resources were used, the effectiveness and efficiency of Fund programming

and the socio-economic impact. It shall be carried out for each of the objectives and

shall aim to draw conclusions for the policy on economic and social cohesion. It shall

identify the factors contributing to the success or failure of the implementation of

operational programmes and identify good practice.”5

Given the complexity of the ex-post evaluation and the need for adequate preparation, a

preparatory study was launched in 2013 to assess the availability, type and usability of

data that would be available at MS level. Building on these findings, three ESF 2007-

2013 ex post evaluations were launched by DG EMPL in 2014. These covered the ESF

Priorities in 27 MS up until the end of 2013 on: (1) Adaptability and Human Capital

(analysed under one thematic ex post evaluation on Human Capital); (2) the Integration

of Disadvantaged Groups (referred to as Social Inclusion); and (3) Access and

Sustainable Integration into Employment (referred to as Access to Employment). In

these three thematic evaluations, an EU level thematic evaluation was combined with in-

depth assessment of a clustering of interventions under each Priority in a selected

number of MS. Each MS was covered by at least one in-depth assessment on one of the

main thematic priorities. The purpose of this report is to provide a synthesis of the

results of these three thematic ex post evaluations and to provide supplementary

evaluation synthesis of the ESF Priorities Promoting Partnership and Strengthening

Institutional Capacity. The ex post evaluation synthesis also includes 28 country reports

(including Croatia) summarising the outputs and results of the ESF investments across

the ESF Priorities and presenting findings and conclusions as well as lessons learned and

good practice at the end of 2014.

This synthesis draws lessons for economic and social cohesion policy at MS and EU level

with reference to the European Employment Strategy as incorporated into the Integrated

Guidelines for Growth and Jobs, within the framework of the Lisbon Strategy and the

Europe 2020 Strategy, and the accompanying (country-specific) recommendations,

national reform programmes, as well as the Education and Training 2020 strategy.

As well as serving the purpose of the ex post evaluation as defined in the General

Regulation (Art. 49.3), the ex post synthesis evaluation will also have the function of

supporting the communication of the Commission with the Council and the European

Parliament of the main results of the 2007-2013 ESF as well as to broader audiences.

1.3 The scope of the ex post evaluation

This report covers the interventions of the European Social Fund during the 2007-2013

programming period in all 28 MS.6 It draws on the Operational Programme documents,

Annual Implementation Reports up to 2014 and any available national and Commission

4COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1081/2006 of 5 July 2006 on the European Social Fund and repealing

Regulation (EC) No 1784/1999 5 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006, laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, European Social Fund and Cohesion Fund. 6 As Croatia only joined the EU in 2013, at the end of the programming period observed by the ex post synthesis.

21

evaluations. The synthesis covers all 117 Operational Programmes in the 28 MS in both

Convergence (CON) and Regional Competitiveness and Employment (RCE) Regions.

The ex-post evaluation synthesis relies mainly on existing evaluation material and

information, but included updated monitoring data until December 2014. To fill the gap

for the two ESF Priorities (Promoting Partnerships and Strengthening Institutional

Capacity) not covered in the three thematic ex-post evaluations. Additional research was

done on the basis of existing data and evaluations, supplemented by a limited number of

interviews and national validation of findings.

The main sources of information for this synthesis report are:

Operational Programmes and amendments/Implementing documents

Annual Implementation Reports 2014 and previous AIRs

System for Fund management in the European Community 2007-2013 (SFC2007)

DG REGIO evaluation on effects of structural funds on GDP and macro-indicators7

The Preparatory Study for the ESF 2007-2013 ex post evaluation (2013)

ESF 2007-2013 ex post evaluation: Access and sustainable integration into

Employment

ESF 2007-2013 ex post evaluation: Investing in Human Capital

ESF 2007-2013 ex post evaluation: Supporting the integration of disadvantaged

groups into the labour market and society

The reports of the ESF Expert Evaluation Network (2011-2013), including EU

synthesis reports, country reports, and an inventory of all evaluations

Evaluation of the response of the ESF to the economic and financial crisis (2012)

Relevant ESF Evaluations (as collected in the ESF evaluation inventory)

'Ex post' evaluation of cohesion policy programmes 2007–2013 focusing on the

European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and

Cohesion Fund (CF) — work package 12: delivery system)8

1.4 Evaluation criteria

This synthesis report brings together all information gathered during the 2007-2013

programming period on each of the five ESF Priorities as defined the ESF Regulation

(Article 3). It also presents the lessons learned in terms of policy choices, target groups

(with a special focus on specific target groups such as young people), programming,

implementation, monitoring and evaluation of future programmes. Particular attention

has been paid to:

The extent to which resources were used;

Effectiveness (quantified results, factors contributing to success and failure,

identification of good practice);

Efficiency measured in terms of cost-effectiveness;

Sustainability;

Gender sensitivity;

Young people;

Community Added Value;

Socio-economic impact.

This synthesis evaluation report is structured along these key evaluation themes.

7 The impact of cohesion policy 2007-2013: model simulations with Quest III;

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2013/wp14a_final_report_en.pdf 7 The impact of cohesion policy 2007-2013: model simulations with RHOMOLO;

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2013/wp14b_final_report_en.pdf 8 http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2013/wp12_final_report.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2013/wp14a_final_report_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2013/wp14b_final_report_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/expost2013/wp12_final_report.pdf

22

2 Background and context

Key Findings

The ESF 2007-2013 is highly relevant in addressing the main policy challenges

associated with achieving the EU headline targets and contributing to the EU

guidelines defined for labour market policies, social policies and education, while

also contributing to the development of the institutional capacity needed to deliver

policies and reforms.

The specific challenges identified by the Country Specific Recommendations (CSR)

in seeking to achieve the EU headline targets are well reflected in the

programming of ESF 2007-2013; all clusters of interventions identified by the

various thematic ex post evaluations can be linked to at least one of the CSR key

challenges.

The flexibility in programming further facilitated by the European Economic

Recovery Plan in 2008, enabled a swift response of the ESF to the immediate

challenges created by the crisis. In its response, the ESF 2007-2013 increased the

focus on fighting unemployment, while ensuring the continued relevance of ESF to

delivering the EU2020 objectives of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.

Due to widespread austerity measures after the economic and financial crisis, the

cuts in national contributions to ESF investments reduced the overall available

investments for ESF from €117.96 billion to €115.60 billion. To limit the negative

effects for MS with financial difficulties specifically, the Community’s financial

contribution was raised by €641.47 million, in comparison to the first version of

ESF 2007-2013.

2.1 EU priorities in employment and social policy

The programming of the ESF takes place in the wider context of social policies in the EU.

A central pillar is the European Employment Strategy (EES), dating back to 1997, when

the EU MS undertook to establish a set of common objectives and targets for

employment policy. The common objective to create more and better jobs in the EU

materialised in the strategy adopted by the Lisbon Council in 2000, and was further

streamlined with the adoption of the Lisbon Strategy’s Integrated Guidelines for Growth

and Jobs in 2005. Subsequently, these were extended into 2008-2010 and formed the

basis for programming ESF 2007-2013.

The Integrated Guidelines were to contribute to (1) attracting and retaining more people

in employment, increasing labour supply and modernising social protection systems, (2)

improving adaptability of workers and enterprises, and (3) increasing investment in

Human Capital through better education and skills.9 To encourage implementation of

these guidelines in a coherent and integrated matter, yearly CSR are drawn up for each

MS by the Council.

To ensure an effective response to newly emerging challenges, particularly as a result of

the financial and economic crisis that started in 2008, the Council adopted in 2010 a new

set of Guidelines for the employment policies of the MS.10 These new guidelines form an

integral part of the Europe 2020 Strategy which aims to create the conditions for smart,

sustainable and inclusive growth towards 2020. Under these guidelines, specific headline

targets have been defined to guide the action of MS towards removing bottlenecks for

growth. The guidelines provide MS with guidance on the challenges and priorities

identified at the European level, and help ensure that national and EU-level policies

contribute fully to achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy. The key

elements of the employment guidelines can be summarised as follows.

92005/600/EC: Council Decision of 12 July 2005 on Guidelines for the employment policies of the MS, OJ L 205, 6.8.2005, p. 21–27. 10 2010/707/EU: Council Decision of 21 October 2010 on guidelines for the employment policies of the MS, OJ L 308, 24.11.2010, p. 46–51.

23

Guideline 7: Increasing labour market participation and reducing structural

unemployment. The EU headline target aims to bring the employment rate for

women and men aged 20-64 to 75% by 2020, including through the greater

participation of youth, older workers and low skilled workers and the better

integration of legal migrants.

Guideline 8: Developing a skilled workforce responding to labour market needs,

promoting job quality and lifelong learning.

Guideline 9: Improving the performance of education and training systems

at all levels and increasing participation in tertiary education. The EU

headline target aims to reduce the dropout rate to 10%, whilst increasing the share

of the population aged 30-34 having completed tertiary or equivalent education to

at least 40% in 2020.

Guideline 10: Promoting Social Inclusion and combating poverty. The EU

headline target aims to reduce by 25% the number of Europeans living below the

national poverty lines, lifting over 20 million people out of poverty.

These guidelines are implemented through the ‘European Semester’, the European

Union's yearly cycle of economic policy coordination. In the context of the Semester,

since 2011 the Commission undertakes a detailed analysis of MS plans for budgetary,

macroeconomic and structural reforms and provides them with CSR for the next 12-18

months. These recommendations also contribute to the objectives of the EU's long-term

strategy for jobs and growth, the Europe 2020 strategy.

2.2 Linking ESF to EU strategic objectives

The ESF is the main financial tool through which the EU translates its strategic

employment objectives into action. Article 2 of the ESF Regulation states that "the ESF

shall support actions in line with measures taken by MS on the basis of the guidelines

adopted under the European Employment Strategy, as incorporated into the Integrated

Guidelines for Growth and Jobs, and the accompanying recommendations”. In operational

terms, this means that MS should design their Operational Programmes (OP) in line with

their priorities, the European Employment Strategy and the annual CSR. Secondly, the

investments should be additional to national investments, and should not replace public

or equivalent structural expenditure.11

The thematic evaluations conducted for the ex-post evaluation of ESF identified clusters

of interventions. These provide insights in the types of interventions selected by ESF

across the EU. The table below describes these clusters, for Access to Employment,

Social Inclusion, and Human Capital, and provides some illustrations of the types of

interventions. Each of these clusters are subsequently linked to the key challenges

identified in the annual CSR, also included in the table below.

Table 1. Clusters of interventions, linked to key CSR challenges

Corresponding CSR challenge

Clusters of interventions Examples of interventions

Access to Employment

Improving PES services 1. Support to PES, other labour market institutions,

Supporting PES reforms, training for PES staff, introducing new ICT systems

Improving PES services 2. Personalised support for individuals,

coaching and careers advice, pathways approaches, guidance

Quality & LM relevance of education & training

3. Training vocational training courses

Increase LM participation 4. Employment incentives Wage subsidies

Support for entrepreneurship

5. Self-employment and entrepreneurship

Start-up support, support for female entrepreneurs

Enhancing participation

of older workers

6. Active ageing and

prolonging working life

Awareness-raising among employers

11 Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the

European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999

24

Corresponding CSR challenge

Clusters of interventions Examples of interventions

Enhancing equal opportunities / LM

participation women

7. Women in employment and reducing gender-based

segregation

Specific support for women, awareness-raising

Enhancing participation of migrants

8. Increasing migrant participation

Language courses, advice and support, social integration

Reduce regional

disparities

9. Geographic and

occupational mobility

Support for people willing to move to find work

Social inclusion

Activation policies low skilled

1. Supporting and enabling actions

Language training for migrants; counselling and assistance, confidence building support; engagement with NEETs

Promote inclusion of vulnerable groups

2a. Advice, guidance and training

Personalised advice, guidance and counselling; training needs analysis; training and skills development; vocational rehabilitation; support for job search; etc.

Promote inclusion of

vulnerable groups

2b. Actions which have

employment as an output

Subsidised employment schemes; develop supported

jobs in the ‘second’ labour market; public works

Promote inclusion of vulnerable groups

2c. Actions aimed at sustaining employment12

Support for disadvantaged groups at risk of redundancy; training or practical support; etc.

Promote inclusion of

vulnerable groups

Cluster 3 Pathway

approaches

Address barriers to employment, and advice,

guidance, counselling and training measures

Reduce regional disparities

Cluster 4 Systemic measures influencing systems, institutional or cultural contexts

Expansion or upgrading of labour market institutions; development of infrastructure to support intermediate labour market; combating discrimination and awareness raising on equal opportunities

Human Capital

Increase/ promote participation in LLL

1. LLL systems Develop of new courses, quality assurance systems and mechanisms for educational institutions, qualification systems, recognition and validation of prior learning

Improve quality of HE 2. Quality of HE Develop e-learning systems in HE, HE staff skills, improvement of HE study programmes, preparation of new HE management models

Improving ECEC access 3 .Early school education Teacher training, awareness raising

Quality & LM relevance of education & training

4. Quality of school education

School staff training, develop programmes, pedagogical tools and procedures, develop student competences

Quality & LM relevance of education & training

5. Quality of VET VET teacher training, promotion campaigns to participate in VET courses, financial incentives to

participate in VET courses

Reducing early school leaving

6. Early school leaving Provision of (vocational) education courses, advice, guidance, mentoring

Improve quality of HE 7. R&D Financial support to study in the tertiary education,

staff training and competence development, support to internationalisation and links with enterprises

Improve education outcomes youth

8. Young people Apprenticeships, internships, access to other training and skills development activities, advice and guidance systems development

Support for employed 9. Employed Support access to the training courses, qualifications, advice and career guidance, develop organisational HR

strategies and management models

Increase/ promote participation in LLL

10. Adults Financial support to training courses, qualifications, advice and career guidance, public works

Improve access and completion of HE

11. HE participation Scholarships for HE participation, funding of HE places, support services for specific target groups (disabled)

Source: Authors, based on synthetic analysis of Thematic Evaluations

12 NB – no Cluster 2c interventions featured in the in-depth reviews, but measures sustaining employment where part of some of the cluster 3 interventions reviewed.

25

Table 2 shows how all clusters of interventions found for the three main ESF priorities

can be linked to the key CSR challenges. Subsequently, this evaluation investigates to

what extent each of the CSR challenges was addressed and taken up by MS, as required

by Articles 2 and 4 of the ESF Regulation. Table 2 shows a consistent link between the

CSR received by MS and the types of interventions programmed in ESF 2007-2013.

Firstly, MS that received CSR to enhance labour market participation have incorporated

these in interventions. This is translated into various ESF interventions around

employability (e.g. assessment; information, advice and guidance; personal

development; basic/core/key employability skills; vocational skills; work experience/

internships; skills in job search, job application and interview processes; post job entry

support). Secondly, other relevant labour market interventions focus on the support,

creation and retention of employment (e.g. self-employment and enterprise start-up;

incentives for employers; temporary income support; transitional employment;

supported employment). Thirdly, an issue that is often mentioned in CSR and is reflected

in ESF programming as well, is the capacity building of relevant public services,

particularly the PES, to be able to offer services better tailored to respondents. However,

CZ and CY did not specifically include this element in their ESF programming, despite

receiving recommendations to do so. Finally, disadvantaged groups are also among the

participants in activities funded under most priority axes. This leads to the conclusion

that the challenges in the field of the labour market and inclusion of vulnerable groups

highlighted in CSR were generally well reflected in the ESF-funded interventions. No

significant discrepancies can be identified.

26

Table 2. Linking priorities in CSR to ESF programming (over the period 2004-2013)13

AT BE BG CZ CY DE DK EE EL ES FI FR HU IE IT LT LU LV MT NL PL PT RO SE SI SK UK

Improving PES services √ •√ •√ • • √ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ √ √ •√ •√ •√ •

Support for

entrepreneurship

√ • √ •√ √ •√ √ • •√ •√ √ •√ •√ • •√ √ •√ √ √ √ √

Increase LM participation √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√

Enhancing participation of older workers

•√ •√ √ •√ √ √ •√ √ √ √ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ √ •√ •√

Increase LM participation

Youth

√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ √ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√

Enhancing LM participation women

•√ √ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ √ √ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√

Enhancing participation of migrants

•√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ √

Activation policies low skilled

•√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ √ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ • •√ √ √ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ • •√

Promote inclusion of vulnerable groups

•√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√

Reduce regional disparities •√ √ √ •√ √ • • •√ •√ •√ √ √ √ √ √

Increase/ promote participation in LLL

•√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ • •√

Improve quality of HE •√ •√ •√ √ •√ √ √ √ •√ √ √ √ •√ •√ •√ √ √ •√

Quality & LM relevance of education & training

√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√

Improving ECEC access • •√ • •√ •√ • •√ •√ √ •√ • •√ • • • • •√ • √ •√ •

Improve education

outcomes youth

•√ •√ •√ •√ √ √ •√ √ √ •√ •√ √ •√ √ • •√ •√ • •√ •√

Reducing early school leaving

•√ √ •√ √ √ • √ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ •√ √ √ •√ •√ •√ √ √ •√

Support for employed •√ •√ •√ •√ √ •√ •√ √ √ •√ • √ • •√ •√ √ •√ •√ •√ •√ • •√

• = mentioned in CSR √ = reflected in ESF programme

Source: ESF synthesis country report annexes

13 To avoid duplications, MS under the Economic Adjustment Programme (PT, EL, CY, IE) did not receive CSR for all years. The table only includes those elements that were included in CSR. Please note that Croatia has not been included in the table on CSR / ESF 2007-2013 as Croatia has become a full member of the European Union on 1st July 2013. It took part in the 2013 European Semester, but did so on a voluntary and informal basis.

27

The importance allocated to EU policy priorities in the field of Human Capital are also

generally well reflected in the ESF programming. Firstly, all MS that received

recommendations to focus on reducing early school leaving included this priority in their

ESF OPs, except DK. However, under the broader banner of improving educational

outcomes, DK has also successfully addressed early school leaving. Various MS that did

not receive such explicit recommendations included this priority in their OPs nonetheless

(CZ, CY, EE, FI, NL, PL, and SI). Only two MS did not include ESL as a priority in ESF

programming (DE and LT), which is in line with their performance on ESL. Secondly, all

MS that received recommendations to concentrate on participation in and quality of

higher tertiary education did so in their ESF programming. On average across the EU,

higher education attainment rates increased, and the gender gap narrowed, but the

improvements were unequal across MS. Thirdly, all 28 MS used the ESF for activities to

enhance the provision of lifelong learning, though SK not directly. Finally, the table also

shows that particularly the recommendations for providing childcare facilities are in a few

cases not followed up by ESF programming. Various MS consider this a more structural

feature of the national education system, which is not addressed by ESF, but by national

funds. Despite existing recommendations, SE and PL also did not include the

improvement of educational outcomes of young people as an explicit priority in their ESF

programming.

Inter-programme coordination

There are only a very few examples of inter-programme coordination between the ESF

and the other ESI-funds. In some MS there was no formal link. The exception seems to

be the field of developing entrepreneurship, where the ESF2007-2013 funded training for

start-ups while the further development of the new enterprises is stimulated by subsidies

from the ERDF. Examples are also found in the field of Human Capital, where ERDF

contributed to education infrastructure (school buildings, etc.), while ESF support the

students, teachers, and education systems.

2.3 Developing challenges across 2007-2013

2.3.1 Labour market challenges

Throughout the ESF 2007-2013 programming period, the employment rate in the EU

marginally increased from 68.9% (2006) to 69.2% (2014), but this masks some major

effects of the crisis. Table 3 shows the changes in the employment rate throughout the

2007-2013 period.

Table 3. shows that, until the crisis in 2008, the employment rate was on average 70.3%

in the EU. The planning and programming of the ESF 2007-2013 took place in 2005-2006

in a context of sustained economic growth and overall improvements in the employment

performance across the EU. However, soon after the start of the ESF implementation

phase, the economic and financial crisis led to a significant deterioration of the economic

and social situation which hit the most vulnerable groups in society in particular. The

table shows that the employment rate fell significantly after 2008, remained relatively

stagnant between 2010 and 2013, and increased again in 2014.

This suggests that the main effect of the crisis has been cyclical unemployment.

However, some MS show decreasing employment rates up to 2014 (CY, EL, ES, IT, SI),

indicating that recovery in these MS has not yet been fully realised at the national level.

This does not exclude the possibility of improvements at the regional level for some of

these MS (take for instance considerable differences between Northern and Southern

Italy, or more developed and less developed regions in Spain). The crisis had a

particularly strong effect in EE, LT, and LV, where the employment rate increased well

before the crisis, than dropped to pre-2005 levels and increased again in the post-crisis

years. The table below shows that the EU2020 headline target of 75% employment in the

EU remains an ambitious target, even after the initial recovery from the crisis.

28

Table 3. Changes in employment rate (people aged 20-64 years) 2006-2014

Source: Eurostat data, compiled by authors

The profound effect of the crisis on the labour market situation in the EU called for the

development of targeted approaches, particularly for the more vulnerable members of

the working age population such as the low skilled, unemployed, younger and older

workers, disabled people, people with mental health issues, or minority groups such as

migrants and the Roma. The employment rates for young people (15-24 year olds)

throughout the years 2007-2013 confirm that the labour market position of young people

in particular has been strongly affected by the crisis. At the same time, the vulnerable

position of older workers with (increasingly) obsolete skills is another challenge European

policymakers face in trying to maintain high employment rates.

2.3.2 Challenges for poverty and social exclusion

With these considerable labour market challenges, the share of the population at risk of

poverty and social exclusion also went up during the crisis. In 2008, more than 80 million

people lived below the poverty line, which amounted to 16.5% of the EU population. The

economic crisis further worsened the situation and the share of the population at risk of

poverty and social exclusion went up during the crisis. According to the most recent data

from Eurostat (201514), in 2014, 122.3 million people, or 24.4% of the EU population,

were at risk of poverty or social exclusion. Young people, migrants and the low skilled,

often relying on temporary and low-paid jobs, have experienced the greatest increases in

unemployment and are therefore exposed to a worsening of their living conditions. The

’working poor’ represented 8% of the working population in 2008, while the risk of

14 Eurostat (2015); People at risk of poverty and social exclusion; http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/People_at_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Trend

EU-28 68,9 69,8 70,3 69,0 68,6 68,6 68,4 68,4 69,2

AT 71,6 72,8 73,8 73,4 73,9 74,2 74,4 74,6 74,2

BE 66,5 67,7 68,0 67,1 67,6 67,3 67,2 67,2 67,3

BG 65,1 68,4 70,7 68,8 64,7 62,9 63,0 63,5 65,1

CY 75,8 76,8 76,5 75,3 75,0 73,4 70,2 67,2 67,6

CZ 71,2 72,0 72,4 70,9 70,4 70,9 71,5 72,5 73,5

DE 71,1 72,9 74,0 74,2 74,9 76,5 76,9 77,3 77,7

DK 79,4 79,0 79,7 77,5 75,8 75,7 75,4 75,6 75,9

EE 75,9 76,9 77,1 70,0 66,8 70,6 72,2 73,3 74,3

EL 65,6 65,8 66,3 65,6 63,8 59,6 55,0 52,9 53,3

ES 69,0 69,7 68,5 64,0 62,8 62,0 59,6 58,6 59,9

FI 73,9 74,8 75,8 73,5 73,0 73,8 74,0 73,3 73,1

FR 69,4 69,9 70,5 69,5 69,3 69,2 69,4 69,5 69,9

HR 60,6 63,9 64,9 64,2 62,1 59,8 58,1 57,2 59,2

HU 62,6 62,3 61,5 60,1 59,9 60,4 61,6 63,0 66,7

IE 73,4 73,8 72,2 66,9 64,6 63,